Yes, Michael Behe is a
scientist, but is "Intelligent Design" science? If so, it will be the
first science established without
a single technical paper published for peer-review, including zero by Behe himself. For some
reason he has decided to completely bypass professional review and go directly
to a Darwin-doubting
public. But more to the point, what is wrong with this book? Here is a
summary of the critiques you will find included on
this page and others:

Surprise! The gradual
paths to Irreducible Complexity

First, let's be clear about
something. Michael Behe has not created a "Theory of Intelligent
Design" (ID). He offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how
design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his
hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact
that is easily detectable in biochemical systems. The real science of ID is yet
to come, and Behe just wants to wedge
the door open a bit. So what does this magic Intelligent Design Detection Kit
look like? Basically open the box and all it contains is a tweezer. Use it to
pluck out any part of a system, and if the system stops functioning properly,
it must be the product of design. Why? Because it proves that the system was
"Irreducibly Complex" (IC)...

"By irreducible
complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting
parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one
of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly
complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications
of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is
by definition nonfunctional." [Behe]

But read this argument
carefully. Behe is not offering a way to detect
design, he is offering a way to falsify
gradual Darwinian evolution, and by elimination, conclude design. But there is
one big problem- his falsifier has been falsified. The conclusion that an
"irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight,
successive modifications of a precursor system" is simply wrong. There are
at least three different ways that an IC system can be produced by a series of
small modifications: 1)
Improvements become necessities, 2) Loss of scaffolding 3) Duplication and
divergence. By Behe's definition, many systems we see around us are IC, and
yet have developed gradually.
Think of the chaotic growth of towns into large cities, the
self-organizing forces behind market economies,
and the delicate causal webs that define complex ecosystems. Evolutionary
algorithms run on computers routinely evolve irreducibly complex designs.
So given an IC system, it could either be the product of coordinated design, or of a gradual, cumulative, stochastic
process. The truth is, we should expect Darwinian evolution to produce such
systems in biology, and not be surprised to find them. The underlying processes
are called co-adaptation and co-evolution, and they have been understood for
many years. Biochemical structures and pathways are not built up one step at a
time in linear assembly-line fashion to meet some static function. They evolve
layer upon layer, contingency upon contingency, always in flux, and retooling
to serve current
functions. The ability of life to evolve in this fashion has itself evolved over time.
Detecting IC does not indicate design, and therefore Behe's hypothesis
collapses. H. Allen Orr says it best in his
perceptive review:

"Behe's colossal
mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no
Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex
system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just
advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very
simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps).
Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't
essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may
change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues
as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many
parts may all be required."

"The point is there's
no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because
later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that
earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders
into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially
just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that
were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this
adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly
terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential.
The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly
Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm
afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the
components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the
beginning' is dead wrong." [*]

The Fallacy of Conclusion
by Analogy

When it comes to explaining
science to the public, analogies and metaphors are essential tools of the
trade. We all can better understand something new and unusual, when it is
compared to something we already know: a cell is like a factory, the eye is
like a camera, an atom is like a billiard ball, a biochemical system is like a
mouse trap. An A is
like a B, means A shares some conceptual properties
with B. It does not mean A has all
the properties of B. It
does not follow that what is true for B
is therefore true for A.
Analogies can be used to explain science, but analogies cannot be used to draw conclusions or
falsify scientific theories. Yet Behe commits this fallacy throughout his book.
For example:

A mousetrap is "irreducibly
complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.

A mousetrap is a product of design.

The bacterial flagellum is
"irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work
properly.

Therefore the flagellum is like a mouse trap.

Therefore the flagellum is a product of
design.

The Psychic Detective

Is it fair to ask for a
frame-by-frame instant replay of the evolution of the bacterial flagella or the
Krebs cycle? Should Evolutionary Biology perish without it? Of course not. As
with any historical science, we arrive on the scene after the fact, as a
detective to a crime. We look for evidence and rational explanations to account
for that evidence. Even the best detective cannot, and should not, reconstruct every footstep,
and every word that took place. But he does not need to in order to solve the
crime. Consider the following: The
evidence for evolution is overwhelming at all levels of biology. Published
attempts have been
made to uncover possible historical scenarios. The evidence for intelligent
design is simply non-existent.

Designer in the Gaps

I should point out that
Behe's hybrid vision of life does accept common descent as reasonable, and does
allow for cases of Darwinian natural selection and random genetic drift. So how
can we distinguish evolution from design? Simple: To Behe, a system has evolved
when he, or others, can imagine
how it has evolved, otherwise it was a product of intelligent design.
"Irreducible Complexity" has nothing to do with it.

A Classification of Possible Routes
of Darwinian Evolution by Richard T. Thornhill and David W. Ussery, Journal of Theoretical Biology,
203:111-116, 2000. - "...This
classification provides a conceptual framework within which to investigate the
accessibility by Darwinian evolution of complex biological structures." (For the record, I
don't agree with their conclusion that Orr's proposed
route can not produce irreducible complexity - John C)

paper:
Robustness of a gene regulatory circuit by John
W.Little, Donald P.Shepley, and David W.Wert - "Basic take-home message
- individual components of a seemingly complex system can be broken and it
still works, just not as elegantly or precisely as the intact setup."

A Reducibly Complex Mousetrap
by John H. McDonald -
FUN! mousetraps in several stages of reduced complexity. (NOTE: even if a
moustrap were "irreducibly complex", the analogy implies nothing
about biological evolution- John C)

Scientific Supernaturalism
by William B. Provine -
A Review of The Origin of Species
Revisited: The Theories of Evolution and of Abrupt Appearance (2
vols) By W. R. Bird (New York: Philosophical Library, 1989)

·Professors
debate legitimacy of Polanyi - "When the Michael Polanyi Center was
quietly established on the Baylor campus last fall, few people knew of its
existence or how much controversy it would foster"

Evolution Opponents
Hold Congressional Briefing (5-11-00) - "IN A NUTSHELL: Supporters of
intelligent design theory brought their message to Capitol Hill in a series of
events for Members of Congress and their staff." (American Geological
Institute)

Next
time you hear of an article, book, conference, or course on "Science AND
Religion", consider where the funding may have come from: Is God
in the details? By Faye Flam - the disturbing influence of John Templeton
on science, and science education

"I'm a Roman
Catholic, I believe in God, but as far as the scientific evidence, I just
say that the -- you know, that these things were designed. I don't claim
anything about the personality of the designer..." --Michael Behe

Has
Behe identified this unnamed designer by his associations
and actions? Aliens? You decide...

Author
to discuss reconciling evolution with modern religion - "I certainly
do think that the designer in all likelihood is God," Behe, a Roman
Catholic, said. "I make pains in my writing and talking, but the
scientific evidence does not point a finger at who the designer is. I argue
from biochemical data."... "The lecture is also sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ,
Chi Alpha and Dallas Christian
Leadership."

Speaking
at th conference: Design
and Its Critics Date: June 22-24, 2000, Sponsored by Touchstone Magazine
(Journal of Mere Christianity) and The Cranach Institute ("committed to
the full authority of the Word of God")